Literature DB >> 28656483

Great expectations: patient perspectives and anticipated utility of non-diagnostic genomic-sequencing results.

Robyn Hylind1, Maureen Smith2, Laura Rasmussen-Torvik3, Sharon Aufox4.   

Abstract

The management of secondary findings is a challenge to health-care providers relaying clinical genomic-sequencing results to patients. Understanding patients' expectations from non-diagnostic genomic sequencing could help guide this management. This study interviewed 14 individuals enrolled in the eMERGE (Electronic Medical Records and Genomics) study. Participants in eMERGE consent to undergo non-diagnostic genomic sequencing, receive results, and have results returned to their physicians. The interviews assessed expectations and intended use of results. The majority of interviewees were male (64%) and 43% identified as non-Caucasian. A unique theme identified was that many participants expressed uncertainty about the type of diseases they expected to receive results on, what results they wanted to learn about, and how they intended to use results. Participant uncertainty highlights the complex nature of deciding to undergo genomic testing and a deficiency in genomic knowledge. These results could help improve how genomic sequencing and secondary findings are discussed with patients.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Genetic counseling; Genomic sequencing; Patient perspectives; Perceived utility; Precision medicine

Year:  2017        PMID: 28656483      PMCID: PMC5752650          DOI: 10.1007/s12687-017-0314-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Community Genet        ISSN: 1868-310X


  32 in total

1.  Disclosing pathogenic genetic variants to research participants: quantifying an emerging ethical responsibility.

Authors:  Christopher A Cassa; Sarah K Savage; Patrick L Taylor; Robert C Green; Amy L McGuire; Kenneth D Mandl
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2012-01-06       Impact factor: 9.043

2.  The general public's understanding and perception of direct-to-consumer genetic test results.

Authors:  J W Leighton; K Valverde; B A Bernhardt
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2011-06-30       Impact factor: 2.000

3.  Actionable, pathogenic incidental findings in 1,000 participants' exomes.

Authors:  Michael O Dorschner; Laura M Amendola; Emily H Turner; Peggy D Robertson; Brian H Shirts; Carlos J Gallego; Robin L Bennett; Kelly L Jones; Mari J Tokita; James T Bennett; Jerry H Kim; Elisabeth A Rosenthal; Daniel S Kim; Holly K Tabor; Michael J Bamshad; Arno G Motulsky; C Ronald Scott; Colin C Pritchard; Tom Walsh; Wylie Burke; Wendy H Raskind; Peter Byers; Fuki M Hisama; Deborah A Nickerson; Gail P Jarvik
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2013-09-19       Impact factor: 11.025

4.  The need for medical education reform: genomics and the changing nature of health information.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Nelson; Amy L McGuire
Journal:  Genome Med       Date:  2010-03-17       Impact factor: 11.117

5.  Assessing perceptions of cancer risk: does mode of assessment or numeracy matter?

Authors:  Kimberly M Kelly; Kristi D Graves; Felicity W K Harper; John E Schmidt; Stephanie L Dickinson; Michael A Andrykowski
Journal:  Cancer Detect Prev       Date:  2007

6.  Recommendations for reporting of secondary findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing, 2016 update (ACMG SF v2.0): a policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics.

Authors:  Sarah S Kalia; Kathy Adelman; Sherri J Bale; Wendy K Chung; Christine Eng; James P Evans; Gail E Herman; Sophia B Hufnagel; Teri E Klein; Bruce R Korf; Kent D McKelvey; Kelly E Ormond; C Sue Richards; Christopher N Vlangos; Michael Watson; Christa L Martin; David T Miller
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2016-11-17       Impact factor: 8.822

Review 7.  The Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network: past, present, and future.

Authors:  Omri Gottesman; Helena Kuivaniemi; Gerard Tromp; W Andrew Faucett; Rongling Li; Teri A Manolio; Saskia C Sanderson; Joseph Kannry; Randi Zinberg; Melissa A Basford; Murray Brilliant; David J Carey; Rex L Chisholm; Christopher G Chute; John J Connolly; David Crosslin; Joshua C Denny; Carlos J Gallego; Jonathan L Haines; Hakon Hakonarson; John Harley; Gail P Jarvik; Isaac Kohane; Iftikhar J Kullo; Eric B Larson; Catherine McCarty; Marylyn D Ritchie; Dan M Roden; Maureen E Smith; Erwin P Böttinger; Marc S Williams
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2013-06-06       Impact factor: 8.822

8.  Patient decisions for disclosure of secondary findings among the first 200 individuals undergoing clinical diagnostic exome sequencing.

Authors:  Layla Shahmirzadi; Elizabeth C Chao; Erika Palmaer; Melissa C Parra; Sha Tang; Kelly D Farwell Gonzalez
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2013-10-10       Impact factor: 8.822

9.  Attitudes of nearly 7000 health professionals, genomic researchers and publics toward the return of incidental results from sequencing research.

Authors:  Anna Middleton; Katherine I Morley; Eugene Bragin; Helen V Firth; Matthew E Hurles; Caroline F Wright; Michael Parker
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2015-04-29       Impact factor: 4.246

10.  Characterizing biobank organizations in the U.S.: results from a national survey.

Authors:  Gail E Henderson; R Jean Cadigan; Teresa P Edwards; Ian Conlon; Anders G Nelson; James P Evans; Arlene M Davis; Catherine Zimmer; Bryan J Weiner
Journal:  Genome Med       Date:  2013-01-25       Impact factor: 11.117

View more
  9 in total

1.  Return of individual research results from genomic research: A systematic review of stakeholder perspectives.

Authors:  Danya F Vears; Joel T Minion; Stephanie J Roberts; James Cummings; Mavis Machirori; Mwenza Blell; Isabelle Budin-Ljøsne; Lorraine Cowley; Stephanie O M Dyke; Clara Gaff; Robert Green; Alison Hall; Amber L Johns; Bartha M Knoppers; Stephanie Mulrine; Christine Patch; Eva Winkler; Madeleine J Murtagh
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-11-08       Impact factor: 3.240

2.  Perspectives and preferences regarding genomic secondary findings in underrepresented prenatal and pediatric populations: A mixed-methods approach.

Authors:  Shannon Rego; Hannah Hoban; Simon Outram; Astrid N Zamora; Flavia Chen; Nuriye Sahin-Hodoglugil; Beatriz Anguiano; Matthew Norstad; Tiffany Yip; Billie Lianoglou; Teresa N Sparks; Mary E Norton; Barbara A Koenig; Anne M Slavotinek; Sara L Ackerman
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2022-04-08       Impact factor: 8.864

3.  Genome sequencing in healthcare: understanding the UK general public's views and implications for clinical practice.

Authors:  Lisa M Ballard; Rachel H Horton; Angela Fenwick; Anneke M Lucassen
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2019-09-16       Impact factor: 4.246

Review 4.  Views on genomic research result delivery methods and informed consent: a review.

Authors:  Danya F Vears; Joel T Minion; Stephanie J Roberts; James Cummings; Mavis Machirori; Madeleine J Murtagh
Journal:  Per Med       Date:  2021-04-06       Impact factor: 2.512

5.  The ethics of genomic medicine: redefining values and norms in the UK and France.

Authors:  Marie Gaille; Ruth Horn
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2021-01-17       Impact factor: 5.351

6.  Preference for secondary findings in prenatal and pediatric exome sequencing.

Authors:  Kate Swanson; Teresa N Sparks; Billie R Lianoglou; Flavia Chen; Sarah Downum; Sachi Patel; Shannon Rego; Tiffany Yip; Jessica Van Ziffle; Barbara A Koenig; Anne M Slavotinek; Mary E Norton
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2021-06-07       Impact factor: 3.242

7.  Direct-to-consumer genetic testing.

Authors:  Rachel Horton; Gillian Crawford; Lindsey Freeman; Angela Fenwick; Caroline F Wright; Anneke Lucassen
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2019-10-16

8.  Healthcare Utilization and Costs after Receiving a Positive BRCA1/2 Result from a Genomic Screening Program.

Authors:  Jing Hao; Dina Hassen; Kandamurugu Manickam; Michael F Murray; Dustin N Hartzel; Yirui Hu; Kunpeng Liu; Alanna Kulchak Rahm; Marc S Williams; Amanda Lazzeri; Adam Buchanan; Amy Sturm; Susan R Snyder
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2020-02-03

9.  Evaluating the model of offering expanded genetic carrier screening to high school students within the Sydney Jewish community.

Authors:  Kristine Barlow-Stewart; Kayley Bardsley; Elle Elan; Jane Fleming; Yemima Berman; Ron Fleischer; Krista Recsei; Daniel Goldberg; John Tucker; Leslie Burnett
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2021-11-30
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.